Andrew Neil skewers the green blobette

You just have to watch this, it shows weaseling out of direct questions as an art form. Key phrase: “Well what I would say is…” From Bishop Hill: Take a look at the new Environment Secretary Elizabeth Truss discussing the green blob with Andrew Neil. It is scary to think that people like this have our collective future in their hands. Even scarier to consider that a Prime Minister would want them in his cabinet.

“Water quality” etc.
I’m not familiar with past UK environmental issues, but it sounds like ( I might be wrong.) that her opening salvos were attempts to claim past common sense responses to actual problems as justification for nonsensical responses to imagined problems.

Camoron sacked Owen Paterson, the only sensible minister he had, to put this useless woman in the job. Of course she is a PPE, so knows nothing of any use (just like most of those in power or at the top of the main political parties n the UK).

Philip, I could agree with you except for the fact that Paterson is pushing smart meters. To get that in perspective, imagine having your water (another everyday utility) turned off whenever the government decided. You couldn’t – you wouldn’t.

The thing that I found most interesting Dave, was that she said basically she has no understanding of the science and has no wish to as she simply is guided by the government scientists. That is quite astonishing at many levels but at the most fundamental I would have thought she would have canvassed the opinions of some scientists outside of the “established order”.
Ministers are appointed for political reasons not ones of competence in the area of their ministry however with the enormous implications of Global Warming I would expect her to at least find out what’s what.
On a slightly different note there is an enormous debate going on now in the UK over renewables thanks to Paterson. Also the power supply is reported as being somewhat iffy. So much so that just now on SKY news Kay Burley had her ass handed to her by a guy who said that renewables were not ready for prime time and the money would be better spent on research and development of alternative energies rather than the ineffectual gesture of putting up wind turbines and solar panels. Burley is a true believer and even though she tried ridicule, anger and sarcasm the fellow just calmly and effectively put her down.
That would never have played on the MSM in the UK even six months ago. It seems that rising bills and falling energy availability is working its magic on the public psyche.

They can’t predict squat after all that money they spent let alone all the catastrophes. The MET predicted a dry winter last year…..and they got flooding. here is my prediction: The legally bound contract carries the risk of crushing their economy. But what is the need for an economy if you have no environment?
My son found a sea urchin fossil at 1686 feet this weekend. And you are worried about how much sea level rise from your hypothesis?

Sorry to be picky, but marine fossils at that altitude will be there as a result of tectonic uplift, not changing sea levels. There are fossils high in the Himalayas, but no-one supposes the sea was ever that high – there just isn’t enough water for that!

You should read your own links Bloke. That election was in 2010 for a different job. Not the job she is filling now.
In September 2012, she was “appointed” ( not elected ) as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. Since 15 July 2014, she has served as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Roy, as I presume you are not a resident of the UK, you may wish to check out this link and in particular where it says ‘By constitutional convention, all government ministers, including the Prime Minister, are members of the House of Commons – or, less commonly, the House of Lords – and are thereby accountable to the respective branches of the legislature.’

He knows on which side his bread is buttered. That is all. The fact that he is unqualified to comment on this science is barely relevant. Sometimes they get ennobled before telling the government what it wants to be told and sometimes they are ennobled afterwards. Whichever way the deal is clear enough to those concerned well before the appointment is made.

They have the same function in the UK as the communist party apparatchiks had in the eastern block.
They are not “scientific” advisers, but instead “academic” advisers giving advice for an on behalf of the public sector.

Wow. That has got to be the first time I have seen a UK television political program actually say “climate scientists are divided about whether erratic weather is caused by climate change” and “is the pause significant?”
That is quite a change from the past.

It’s arguable that the EU “decision” isn’t legally binding on individual nations so the 40% nonsense may not be relevant if (when?) we leave.
Unfortunately we have the Climate Change Act which was passed by Parliament in 2008 voluntarily. It was designed by Greenpeace, taken through Parliament by Ed Milliband, now leader of the official opposition, and enthusiastically supported by David Cameron, now Prime Minister. The number of votes against passing the bill was 3. That law does contain real, legally binding targets, more onerous than the EU’s, which would be unaffected by a UK withdrawal. As I have indicated, the likelihood of repealing or modifying it are very small.

Well, it’s a pity but a sad reality that in Europe nearly all mainstream politicians (no matter whether from the left or right side, as here) are still true believers of the CAGW religion thanks to an almost total control of the mainstream media by green-driven journalists (and green teachers in schools as well). People will believe what they are told daily again and again, even more so politicians if they want to get elected by the brain-washed majority. The power over liberal nations lies in the control over their mainstream media. The green CO2 witch-hunters have realized this fact very early and acted accordingly, with overwhelming success so far…
And now: “The gas of Life” CO2, the foundation of a green and thriving Earth, is believed to be the greatest enemy of mankind! What a absurd parody indeed!!!

I fully support Your comment. But what can we do about it ??? Just wait another decade to watch the temperature N O T to increase ? And what happens when/if Main stream realizes they have been fooled ?

Actually, if people would use strictly scientific standards, the CAGW religion were disproved already thanks to “The pause” in spite of the steadily increasing CO2 Level, because this contradiction proves – even together with all the fanciful excuses given – that the warming period before “The pause” (between 1980 – 2000) was at least more than 50% naturally caused. Thus another decade long observation of “No Global Warming” should be unnecessary.
But alas! The High Priests and eager storm troopers of “The Holy War” against fossil energy and CO2 simply cannot surrender without loosing their careers and honor. So they have to play “Moving the goalposts” even if they have realized their errors in the meantime. And the brain-washed followers and general public do not even recognize the failure of the CAGW projections because of the ongoing and totally biased propaganda in the main stream media.
Therefore it is difficult to guess, when the CO2 hysteria will be overcome at last. Maybe we will have to wait until a CAGW heavy weight has his “Pauline Conversion” and publicly breaks the “Omertà” of the IPCC mob. This could be – hopefully – a real “tipping point” of the CAGW debate…

Politicians are just too scared to speak for themselves they merely repeat, ad nauseaum the sound bites and cliches they’ve been told to spout. It leads to car crashes like this when the pre ordained response doesn’t fit the question. She and all of them must know they have made a total tit of themselves in these circumstances

He should have asked her if she knows what the scientific method is, and if the chief scientific officer does too? I suspect that she doesn’t and the chief scientific advisor has forgotten how to apply it.

Hmm…”I would say..”
That sounds like she considered what Neil brought up as hypothetical questions rather than facts. Her answers weren’t what she will actually try to do because she doesn’t consider the questions to be based on (her) reality.

I have seen several references to UKIP. I am with you but they run the risk of losing a referendum because they do not serious Brexit plan. Read Eureferendum.com. Otherwise, stick it to the elite bubbleheads!

Indeed Robert, you’re absolutely right to point that out. The UKIP vote is ultimately a protest vote, not a serious strategic step towards a less, err, dystopian future. Their Top Man – famous for his highly entertaining Farage Barrage – is a bombast, a polarizer. Not unlike Geert Wilders here in the Netherlands. And some of Farage’s more prominent disciples are clearly from the WASP school of negative hectoring.
They often speak truth to power and clearly have a point, which is of course why there are so many good folk who are drawn to support them. However, their message is essentially a negative one, and that will be their downfall. You will not win the hearts and minds of the intellectuals and opinion-formers you need on-side with bluster and Godfrey Bloom-style foaming of the mouth.
The Dear Good Lord Monckton’s presence was in my opinion one of the saving graces of UKIP in that regard, being the heavyweight – and gloriously eccentric – intellectual he is. But he is clearly not your common-or-garden bubble-dweller either.
Ultimately, any genuine disengagement from the artificial supranational construct we call the EU has to centre around a credible exit strategy that factors in all the multitudinous levels of local, provincial, national, supranational and global government. Not to mention the multiplicity of powerful global NGOs and the like, and especially the massive ‘hidden’ UN/WHO-based bureaucracies in Rome, Geneva and elsewhere, including the infamous Codex Alimentarius and its ilk.
And that’s where the endearingly irascible Dr North’s Flexcit plan and Harrogate Agenda win hands down, in my opinion. They represent intelligent and well-thought-out exit strategies for disengagement. What’s more, they offer credible and positive alternatives to fill the power vacuum – the void left when casting off such large parasitic organisms as the EU (see Matthew 12:43–45). All grist to his mill!
Solve et Coagula – distilling the wholesome essence of the legacy today to build clusters of value for tomorrow’s world…

Jan Smit:
“Their message is essentially a negative one”.++++++++
Nonetheless with a powerful appeal to those who have a negative attitude toward present policy, and pray tell, who does not. For a new party trying to elbow its way into the political scene, it is the only strategy that makes sense. Trying to out-promise the other side of the political spectrum leads nowhere.

I follow Andrew Neil on twitter. He is probably the only BBC interviewer with any credibility whatsoever. Whoever is sitting in front of him gets a real grilling. He does his homework, thoroughly and is the only BBC employee in current affairs who has taken the time to actually research the mechanics of climate change and is willing to put sceptical questions to alarmists at all.

As soon as I heard before the last election that David Cameron was proposing to put a piffling windmill on the roof of his Notting Hill house, I knew we would be in BIG trouble! (Helped of course by our evangelical but innumerate Energy and Climate Change Secretary)

Hi from (sane)Oz. Did viewers of this farcical ‘interview’ also note the clever use of the term ‘technology neutral’, which implies that the most appropriate technology would be supported, except of course that wind and solar are heavily subsidised, coal is banned, and shale gas is facing every hurdle that can be thrown up. What an affront to truth! God help you poor Poms – because your government certainly won’t! By the way, we still have a few places left for migrants (like me) down here if you are quick…

This is heart-warming. We tend to complain about mainstream media bias in favour of CAGW, but Andrew Neil certainly counts as mainstream, on the BBC, and he is pulling no punches. More power to his elbow. Maybe the damn is cracking….

Smooth faced Dave will be sweating – as it dawns on him that Neil’s markedly tougher line of sceptical questioning is a precursor to things the electorate will be demanding answers to before long – only with burning torches in hand. I just wonder whether it’ll be her head or the chief scientific advisor’s on the block first (before Cameron is himself thrown under a bus by his own party)?

Oh for goodness sake!
She didn’t do that badly considering the situation she was in! The whole thing is a big game between the press and the politicians and if anyone listened to what the meat of what she was saying it’s really actually quite encouraging.
The questions Andrew Neil asked were tough but fair. But she is not experienced or senior enough to be able to make the statements that the questions demanded of her. I know its awful and irritating to watch a politician squirm out of having to answer a question directly but there is no way she could have without risking the serious ire of party leaders.
What did she actually say:
– She used the word “adaption”. Several times.
– She made the point that the voters aren’t interested in what is causing the erratic weather (I disagree entirely that the weather should be characterized as ‘erratic’ – erratic compared to what?) only that the government make sure that measures are in places to be able to cope with it. Absolutely true.
– She pointed out that the policy allowing for the evolution of technologies that would allow them to hit their emissions target. I really liked that – that is sensible policy. If CO2 does turn out to be a problem (highly unlikely now I know) then natural gas will help them bring emissions down and possibly carbon capture as a possibility to bring it down further. That’s reasonable. When she talked about “nuclear” I was also extremely encouraged. I am pretty sure that that also meant fusion or thorium fission developments.
– She also pointed out that wind is no longer getting any subsidies and has to go through local planning (meaning it will be extremely unlikely that there wioll be any further development of wind power).
– She also said that solar will only subsidized on commercial buildings- not on agricultural land. I am very skeptical about the efficacy and utility of solar especially in the UK, but that seems to be a fairly sensible policy in the light of everything else.
You guys need to bear in mind the advice they have been given – which is that emissions have to be cut because of manmade climate change. They can’t just ignore that advice. I know the advice is flawed for all the reasons it is, but you can’t expect a responsible government minister to just ignore it out of hand.
I am no Tory supporter – at all. I am politically left of Labour and generally vote Lib Dem here in the UK, and I am generally not supportive the current government. But I am highly conscious of the games and sparring that goes on between pollies and journalists such as Andrew Neil. It’s a game – he is trying to get something out of them he can then beat them over the head with later, he does it with them all.
There was no way she was going to come out and say the things he wanted her to say – not if she wanted to keep her job. But given that, what did emerge is very encouraging indeed. It means the UK government is thinking in terms of adaption, and managing uncertainty over climate in the longer term, and not just blindly following the green agenda.

Isn’t Labour now left of the lib dems? Brownite Ed got in not his Blairite brother David.
I know you might not believe it but because of Ed, or more importantly because the Unions supported Ed in the leadership contest we’re in for yet another 5 years of right to far-right politics in UK.
Even if his politics were sound he’d still lose. The guy is unelectable – meek, useless and unstateman like appearance. Has about 1/20th the charm of Blair and Clinton and about 50% of faux charm Obama peddles for his poodles.

Maggie you almost had it before ww2. Daily Mail and some other rich and selfish (or just scummy) entities wanted fascism in GB.
There is always a parallel between how dictators and populists get in. Using politics of fear and division is abhorrent to me, but this is exactly what UKIP’s been doing.
Farage is popular because it still appeals to a sizeable part of the population. Whenever something goes wrong blame the johnny foreigner of course. Such base tribalism should have been consigned to history 70 years ago yet many still fall for it because they deep down believe the rhetoric.
Farage is a crook. Expenses, both at home and EU. Ridiculous wages to his missus and of course not having any serious figures past the scare mongering ones… yet to his supporters he’s the architypal non politician.
They are either very naive, insane therefore can’t vote or they get off at tribalist division that won’t end well.
I forsee much social unrest should the “further”-right agenda become more prominent. Popularity of Farage and Boris is that sign of the times.

DECC is in an invidious position. I’ve been watching DECC for years now. They have a real problem…
– How to keep the lights on and the costs down for political reasons of electability.
– How to placate the powerful EU lobbies that are cleaning up on energy and especially renewable energy..
Their ‘vision 2050’ or whatever it was was pure doublethink. It featured no less than 60GW of nuclear capacity – to essentially run the country off and displace fossil away from any area it could be displaced from, and 120GW of wind and other renewables to meet ‘renewable obligations’.
Politically it was a joke. From an engineering standpoint it was utterly insane. Once you have nuclear at all, intermittent renewables are a total waste. The nuclear does everything that renewables do – deliver low carbon cheap energy – without any of the disadvantages and costs associated with intermittent renewables.
Why would you want to throttle back nuclear power – a zero carbon source – to make way for wind and solar?
Might as well put sails on a nuclear submarine…
To have nuclear at all, you have to invest heavily in plant, which you want to run as near full capacity as possible. You also have to have a functional fuel supply and waste disposal chain. Which you also want to leverage the most out of. That means once you have any nuclear at all, you want to have at least enough to run all the baseload plus a bit more to cope with power station outages and regular routine maintenance. Realistically that’s at least 30GW for UKs current grid, and 60GW for a nation that is using nuclear electric for things like space heating and industrial heating.
Ideally you would peak follow with hydro, but the UK has almost no serious hydro potential to cover demand peaks. Solar is totally useless, since it occurs when demand is at its lowest. Summer daytime is less than summer evenings. Wind cannot be relied upon to be there when needed as peak demand is in colder less windy winter periods.
Peak following requires dispatch of stored energy: Renewables are not storage based, except biofuels and hydro. Hydro potential is inadequate and so is biofuel.
In reality, a zero carbon UK would be more likely to use surplus nuclear electricity to synthesise hydrocarbon fuels as a way to store summer surpluses of nuclear power for winter demand. Lets face it, the supply chain for gas and oil and diesel type products already exists, and if there is no access to fossil supplies, the actual synthesis of hydrocarbon fuels instead at least is not much more expensive than running the nuclear at low capacity factors in summer. That is, once the nuclear plant and fuel chain investment is made, the opportunity cost of using surplus power to synthesise hydrocarbon fuel is only the capital cost and O & M cost of the synthesis plant itself. Nuclear fuel itself is trivially cheap.
Assuming (and it is a large assumption) that governments are in place that actually have any responsibility towards the citizens that comprise their electorates at all, and democracy still exists in some form, the inevitable solution will have to be massive deployment of nuclear power in the 21st century, simply because no other viable alternative actually exists.
All we are seeing is the gradual appreciation of that single salient fact.
And it actually preserves the value of big Oil and big Gas, as they simply move from drilling and fracking at the front end of the supply chain to using nuclear electricity as the basic ‘refinery’ feedstocks.
My considered opinion is that when all is said and done, synthetic hydrocarbon fuel is the least worst alternative for storage of electricity to provide off-grid and dispatchable power in countries that lack large hydro potential.
see http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Beyond_Fossil_Fuels.pdf

Agnostic, you are the only one here who has nailed it. Pity that you vote Lib Dem though. It’s liberal thinking that has got Britain into the mess it finds itself – its justice system, law, local government, health & safety, energy, and climate change. I am no natural Tory either, but we are only ever going to achieve a better society by recognising how Capitalism works, not by socialist ideals. The big Labour idea is dead, and liberalism doesn’t work. I’m UKIP myself, and realise that we can only ever achieve a reasonable society (where not everyone wins) by conservative thinking. I was brought up way to the Left, and found out that Labour is a cruel joke, promised to the working class, and something that can never be delivered. I now despise the political party that I was once a member of. I hope, with all my heart, that Labour NEVER attain power here again. They are a fraud, a fraud that just wants to spend everyone’s money on policies that would lead Britain to strife and despair.

Dbstealey. No, it isn’t. You are confused, and I understand that. For how much longer would you like to carry on borrowing money to spend? Would you wait until the interest that you are paying is your largest item expenditure? Now, i realise that the Tories are still spending more than they should (you probably don’t see that), but they would never have been able to get the agreement of the pathetic Lib Dems to see a proper fiscal policy through – wouldn’t get re-elected either. The people are too thick to see that we are struggling to pay just the interest on a debt that isn’t going to get inflated away. The vast majority of British people wouldn’t even understand that last sentence. They want Eastenders, their Sun, their Strictly, and their Jungle. They cannot comprehend national debt, just as they cannot comprehend nuclear fusion. If we carried on the Labour way, we would be fighting each other in the streets in 15 years, because we’d have no money left. Remember that not that was left for the Chancellor? Do you?

Ghost,
I do not disagree with anything you wrote. But it’s clear I didn’t make myself clear. Sorry about that.
My only point in posting that notice was that society is not going in the direction that most folks would prefer.
It is all part and parcel of the same thing: liberalism [by which I mean Socialism and its associated bureaucratic excess]. It is destroying society, both there and over here.

Sorry. Agreed. Everyone wants to be a celeb, they want to be rich, they want to live forever. It’s not honest. To spend money we don’t have, and to pass that debt on, when it can’t be inflated away, is not just dishonest, it’s disgusting. Dishonesty is destroying society. We should be forcing the masses to understand that some people will clean toilets, that we cannot spend a bottomless pit of money on health, that we cannot get on with people who aren’t like us (multiculturism). But there has never been honesty in politics.

Ghost, I rarely discuss politics here but this perhaps the time to mention my views:
– the question of whether climate change is largely manmade is a scientific one, and what to do about it is political.
– I am keenly concerned about the environment which is why I am not in favour of renewable energy. It is both invasive to the environment, and locks us into fossil fuels longer. High density modular energy production is the most benign form of energy production (small scale nuclear in reality). Humanity can’t progress until we leave FF behind. We didn’t leave the stone age for lack of stones.
– The biggest threat to the environment is poverty. Therefore anything that drags on wealth creation is a threat to the environment as well as social welfare (tied with the environment as my biggest concern). I don’t really care how that wealth is created so long as it is.
– Trade, not just in goods and services, but in ideas, is the most important force for developing society and reducing its impact on the environment.
– I am extremely pro-EU, you are probably not going to like to hear. The EU for all its insanity, inefficiencies and inconsistencies has been overall a tremendous force for wealth creation. We focus on all the bad stuff and it all seems really bad, but perspective is not just something artists should worry about.
– I strongly disagree with the Lib Dems over climate, and I think they are wrong about other things too, but over all they best represent my views. I am pretty disenchanted with Labour and while the most recent Tory/Lib Dem government hasn’t been an abject failure, I think they have made things more painful through the recovery than was necessary.

Why not? She seems pretty intelligent to me. Ask yourself what you might have said in her situation bearing in mind these constraints:
– You are not allowed to disagree with the IPCC or the scientific advice you have been given.
– You are not allowed to say that you do not think the warming has stopped.
– You are not allowed to say that 20th Century warming may not have been manmade.
– You are not allowed to contradict a former and more senior government minister.
Read between the lines. The “game” is that Andrew Neil would try to make her say things she knew she was not allowed to. Between the lines were very reasonable things. It sounds to me like government policy is starting to properly reflect uncertainty about climate and future technology, rather than hadn-wringing that we are all going to hell in a handbag.

Agnostic. Whether a project goes through one planning or another has nothing to do with whether financial support is being provided. Whether it makes any difference to success or otherwise is beside the point – planning permission is a matter for planners and their constituents. If they do approve new projects, guess who will pay?
In fact, she said NO INCREASE in subsidy, and that is quite different to NO subsidy. Under EMR, new wind turbine projects (if approved) will get a contract with a price of £100/MWh, dropping to £95/MWh by 2019. That’s about twice the present wholesale power price.

“wind is no longer getting any subsidies” This is a manifesto promise by the Tories for new installations, as far as I know existing subsidies are locked in for the life of whatever contract they signed.
“….has to go through local planning (meaning it will be extremely unlikely that there wioll be any further development of wind power).”
Local planning will push them through because it is central government policy. Any rejection means an appeal, at which a government inspector will approve over the heads of local government. This costs local government money, so pragmatically they tend to approve wind farm development.

Way simplistic. Wind power at a local level is extremely unpopular. Very unlikely more wind farms will be developed. Not impossible but very unlikely indeed. It’s not the local government that would stop them, it is local opposition. People mobilise against these things and stop them dead. I know, I have been involved in a similar thing, except in this case it was local government trying to force it through against the wishes of the residents. If it’s deeply unpopular locals have quite a bit of power to stop these things if they organise.

Wow. Now that is a wild take on the interview.
She refused to answer any questions acknowledging that the advice she was given on global warming did not comport with reality. You refuse to acknowledge the same fact and make the decision that what she said was reasonable because only an unreasonable person would consider the facts.
You absolutely can ignore advice (good or bad) as is standard practice in politics. In an appointed position of governance, it is her responsibility to make a determination as to what advice is good or bad and make a decision on that. Unfortunately, she is now faced with a bad law, based on bad advice, which requires the near complete elimination of fossil fuel energy production, and she refused to give the public a truthful answer on that particular little detail.
Very strange how people on the left see the world.

“She refused to answer any questions acknowledging that the advice she was given on global warming did not comport with reality. ”
There’s no way she would be allowed to. It’s naive to imagine she would make statement like that. The next thing would be a question to the Prime Minister “Do you agree with your environment minister that global warming has stopped?”
Think about the political ramifications of the PM trying to answer that.
It might seem strange but that is how politics works in this country. I have watched tons of Andrew Neil interviews – this was a good one but not untypical. If it was skeptic minister they would have been raked over the coals in the same way, only this time it would have been questions like;
“Do you always ignore advice from your own scientists?”
“Studies have shown that 97% of scientists think manmade climate change is real and a serious threat. Even the Royal Society agrees. Yet you are just going to ignore that and make up your own mind?”
“How are you going deal with Brussels? They’ve just signed up to a new treaty. Won’t that affect relations and trade with the UK?”
I know all of that is bollocks – I am not saying it isn’t, but that’s how they go about it. You have to get used to seeing how the politicians have to deal with these sorts of questions and look beyond it to subtext. Think of it from the politicians point of view. A single comment that could be taken out of context can absolutely blow up and destroy careers.
What you have missed is that she left the door wide open for nuclear – traditionally very unpopular here. They are looking to develop shale gas and gas power generation. They are pulling back from solar and wind (thank god). It strongly sounds like more moderate voices of reason have been at work on energy policy. And not too soon either.

Agnostic:
You very eloquently present the dilemma of the glib miss. Our duty is to see that she slips not out if our grasp. Your empathy is misplaced. P**s on elected officials who have led their country into an odious predicament and then dawdle and speak newspeak when confronted with the mess.

This is cringeworthy.
It is clear the woman is either not a good politician or she lacks conviction in what she’s saying.
If I were in her place I’d definitly lack conviction, especially after these 18 years.

The trick is to make those non-anwsers non-obvious. The fact that her side’s been banging on about settled science and she can’t anwser one simple question on it properly shows exactly she was not prepeared for the interview. Her body language… and her voice tone were often defensive rather than comfortable when dealing witht he questions. Shows she didn’t read up on the standard responses to such questions given by the cAGW lobby.
That or she knows the absurdity of the situation but jumped on the chance to be a minister for ‘something’ regardless.

Obama is even better than this woman. He doesn’t dodge questions, the Whitehouse press office censors the questions from the press pool and makes sure he gets softball questions that make him sound great. And the press do this because their “face time” would be reduced if they are kicked out of the Whitehouse press pool. Worse times are coming.

I am encouraged by her reluctance/inability to answer the questions. She knows the truth; she just can’t bring herself to admit it publicly. Keep pushing, eventually, those with less than a religious commitment to CAGW will find a way to back down.

Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
CLIMATE ACTIVISTS DENIERS:
DENY 18 Yr 1 MONTH PAUSE IN GLOBAL WARMING
DENY WEATHER WAS MORE SEVERE IN THE PAST
DENY THE MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD WAS WARMER
DENY RENEWABLES HAVE BIG CARBON FOOTPRINT REQUIRE BURNING OF FOSSIL FUEL FROM CRADLE TO GRAVE
DENY “SKYROCKETING”
SKYROCKETING FUEL PRICES DOOM POOR TO DEATH BY FUEL POVERTY

So much propaganda, when she was elected to represent her electorate, not crucify them. So the poor in electorate have to burn newspapers and library books in winter to stay warm, so she can hold her perks. Shame. Shame Shame.
What about her wood burning generator. So Britain has reverted 300 years to the same wood burning that stripped the country of trees. If that is useful adaption then she should be in a mental institution. She claimed there were more trees in Britain than for 700 years, now they are burning them or other people trees.
The greens in Australia shut down at least 3 woodchipping plants and EPA approved sawmills all over Australia, yet the UK boasts about a woodchip generator.
These people are incorrigible liars.
She defended herself with carbon capture. In Australia, they spent over $500million in Queensland alone and abandoned anymore carbon capture programs. It can be done but cost would bankrupt the state.
So why do they trot out this failed strategy as if it is St George conquering the dragon.
While Agnostic is cheered by reading between the lines, the only adaption this person is taking is in language as the CO2 driven warming implodes. She has learnt if she says these things it might cut the heat of interview, but then she goes back to her cuts by 2030. So, they are only expanded weasel words as they drive the nation broke.

If the UK has a really cold winter over the next few months, then goofies like Elizabeth Truss and Ed Davey promising there will be no blackouts in the UK, will deservedly look exceptionally stupid and naive.
If they weren’t both relying on wind power when high pressure systems, bringing cold weather, negate so much of the UK’s electricity supply, they might be right.
A long spell of cold winter weather – and sadly lots of deaths from hypothermia – in the UK might just bring about the demise of the green blob and the country’s current insane energy policy. The winners will be UKIP, the only British political party with a sensible energy policy, which is firmly anti-green blob.

The UK has already had a succession of cold winters and summers, but these thieving shites continue to blather; and they pay the UK Met Office to provide the “proof”. They are profiting; what’s wrong with that?

I actually applaud the interview for two reasons: One, the questioner was persistent and not in the bag for the lefties; and two, the woman agreed to be interviewed in this hostile venue. You won’t find those things in this country (USA).

Really? This is normal over here. Look on youtube for ‘Jeremy Paxman’. The British politicians that have gained a position in office are the sort of people who can conduct an interview and not answer a single question. It’s an art. We are taught to debate and argue, to win with facts, or to rebutt if facts are not on our side. It becomes a sword fight, with a parry or a stab. There is no ‘right’, it’s purely a matter of opinion on which line is the best to take.

Politicians today are driven today by focus groups and surveys. They also tend to believe that what happens on twitter or other ‘social media’ is what ‘ordinary’ people are thinking.
She would receive an email every morning telling her what her core beliefs are for the next 24 hours of the news cycle.
Politicians like her tend to fall apart when questioned without advisers feeding her information. You will never see leaders like Obama hold a news conference where there is a risk they will be asked a difficult question. Uncontrolled environments are extremely dangerous to politicians.

No, you are wrong. She is advised, but she is quite capable of defending her position and policies, even if they are absurd (which they are). You should have noticed that she didn’t fall apart even once. She was composed, and never actually answered Mr Neil’s questions.

But if she cannot truthfully answer questions, then why did she agree to be interviewed? It seems the prudent thing to do would be to claim that her schedule disallowed it.
‘What I would say’ ☺ to her is this: don’t agree to an interview with Mr Neill unless you have solid answers.
Obviously, she didn’t. So she tried to wing it. Bad form.

Dear me! This is what you call a “Conservative” minister in Blighty? She’s a died-in-the-wool and dogged AGW hugger. You lot are in very big trouble if there is no opposition party digging in against this lunacy.

And you just made my point, perfectly. An “opposition” person (in or out of a job) voices opposition – as the moniker implies. I see them going at it hammer and tongs in Prime Minister’s Questions every week, but never over this issue. Fact is the Cameron government does agree there as an AGW “problem” – and (as proven here) not just tacitly. Silent and compliant “opposition” is no opposition at all – it’s genuflection.

Well, her upbringing was in a left-wing family in a wealthy area of Northern England. Cameroon and co. have shown no desire to end the global warming fraud, particularly as his father makes loads of dough from it. So, yes, you could say she is keeping her job by lying; this is what politicians do; but there are times and places when the truth must be operated upon, or disaster ensues.

That’s not the point you made. You said that she is a AGW hugger. She isn’t! That’s what I meant about reading in between her lines. And we DO have opposition. We have UKIP. It isn’t much yet, but it’s growing.

In the US the conservative republicans are similarly neutered, unable to clearly state common sense realties.
For instance a conservative politician can not state that the “I am owed” blame mentality of certain minority citizens is a cultural handicap primarily responsible for their lack of economic progression. Just as thy cannot own a bumper sticker proclaiming “Stop Global Whining!”

Hydro Tasmania (HT) was one of the top 250 “carbon polluters” under the ALP’s price on carbon (CT) policy. HT in the first year of the CT, HT made an additional Au$50mil profit as a direct result of the CT. HT is also involved in coal-to-liquid projects in China.

I do apologize to North Americans for this British John Kerry. She is just full of shite. What about gas? That releases XCO2 doesn’t it?
“Well, we will run out of gas anyway”.
Pray tell why argument doesn’t apply to oil or coal? Upper class twit.

May?
May have slowed?
Well wait a minute I personally may have slowed the warming by eating less spicy foods. Just this week I may have inadvertently caused large sun-spots by trying to cool the sun with my thoughts.
Well on a positive note, the energy-minister is acknowledging termperature is no longer rising, and also exposed himself as insane for thinking he and his government controls global termperature. I mean you do have to be crazy to think that, don’t you?

@ 6:25 “the reality is we only have a limited amount of fossil fuels.”
@ 7:25 “gas is going to run out anyway.”
The keg of beer will eventually run out, folks. Let’s quit drinking the beer now and switch to the wine.

Actually this is a great example of how politics does not work. Politics in a democracy is supposed to be a tool used to drive governance. Now politics has become not just a means but an end in itself, filled with self-serving incompetent nit-wits. Politics is disconnected from content, competence, and rational governance, it has become empty, meaningless,untrustworthy, cronyism on steroids, and tabloid sensationalism. Western governments are only surving now due to inertia, huge entities lurching forward blindly without insight or inspiration. If there were meaningful politics, climate science would be quickly be identified for what it is, an interesting branch of research with ludicrous alarmists polluting the well, and certainly without any policy ramifications in its current state.

Andrew Neil has conducted several interviews from a sceptic position – this one being his most obviously sceptic that I have seen.
Trouble with that is the BBC is not there to give platforms to biased and opinionated interviewers and Neil may be in trouble on this one.
The fact that so many sceptics have lapped up this interview says it all.

James Abbott: . . . .
Perhaps, then, you could cast your mind back to the release of AR5 SPM last September. The BBC News 24 channel spent all afternoon focused exclusively on it, repeating the “95% confidence” line ad infinitum, and without question.
As a token to the skeptics, there was one 2-minute interview with Fred Singer. The interviewer (can’t remember who) asked Singer (in a tone of some disbelief) what he thought the IPCC scientists’ motivation was for exaggerating or misrepresenting the science. Singer replied that he “would have to ask them”.
The interviewer then spent the rest of the short slot repeatedly asking the same question with an increasingly Paxman-style air of cynicism, finishing off with “I still don’t know why you would think that they would do that – I mean, were they just having a laugh or something?”
Not one question about the science, Singer’s views on it, or the NIPCC, It was very possibly the worst, most slanted and most insulting interview that I have ever seen on the (once great) BBC.
Is that more your idea of ‘non-biased’ or ‘non opinionated’ journalism?
Strangely, it passed the top brass by completely, so I’ll certainly be interested to know if Andrew Neil’s attitude does produce rumblings of disapproval.
Now, that IS interesting

As opposed to every single editorial given by David Shukman et al? Seriously, please don’t patronise us with claims that the BBC is bias free, Neil is about the only presenter that actually questions the dogma ingrained throughout the corporation that we pay for, and are lied to every day despite over 50% of the licence fee payers being sceptical on the issue.
The fact that warmists scoff at the the interview says even more

Politicians never answer the questions put to them, they generally only make statements remotely related to the question if related at all. Amazingly, occasionally the actual question asked will co-incide with their statement.
Reporter: What do you say to critics that your energy policy is confused, lacks focus, and not grounded in any pragmatic way?
Politician: Well energy policy is very important to me and should be to you too, since our children will be the ones to suffer. I have dediciated myself to helping the old and saving the young from a future of ruin brought upon by climate change.
Reporter: Your policies have been dark pits where money is continually shovled in but benefits fail to appear. Will you be changing your energy policies based on these poor results?
Politician: Well my policy is of course to use all our public monies as wisely as possible, and as a representative of the people I am very dedicated to this. Thank you no more questions.

So let me understand…Britain doesn’t want coal, fracking, nukes or land based windmills, but does want solar (I thought Britain was cloudy) and off shore wind ( impossibly expensive in the North Sea ).
That leave us with efficiency.
Advice from a Yank…Huddle round your peat fires or rise up.

The public is interested…in trees and bees. Bees love trees and trees love CO2. Starve the trees; starve the bees. I’m confused. What I meant to say was everything must be green…except the flowers. Bees love flowers. Bugger the trees. Bugger green.

It all makes perfect sense… as long as you can’t do math, and always just choose the answer that makes you feel good even if it is impossible.
Unfortunately, the various engineers of the world have found ways to do some damn near impossible things, so the eco-loons now think anything and everything is possible if you just demand it enough and it makes you feel good enough. Reality need not apply.

The really sad thing is that, like Obama, she expressed a confidence that someone magically will come up with a technology that will supply a an abundant supply of affordable energy to generate electricity.
That has the intelligence of Tarzan swinging through the forest letting go of the last branch before the next tree branch is even in sight while failing to realize that billions of dollars has already been wasted on a replacement fuel with zero success. Of course most of that money has been wasted on mature technologies like wind turbines and solar which has zero possibility of achieving the goal. Having lived in the suburbs of London for 2 years I cannot imagine anyone even considering solar.
Finally I don’t recall any discussion of transportation fuels which are even more difficult to replace..

There is no mention of the country involved in this piece. A number of countries have Environment Secretaries, Prime Ministers, and green blobs. So why not tell us where it is instead of making us guess from the accent in the video? A previous article, “Sanity: Subsidies for solar farms to be cut to help safeguard farmland” also mentions Elizabeth Truss without telling us what country it was in. I hate to nitpick, but it really would be helpful if the name of the country was included in the title or first paragraph for those of us who are too uneducated to have memorized the names of every politician and secretary in the world.

“Well what I would say is, I haven’t been briefed properly for this, I have no idea what i’m talking about, I am ill suited for this position in the cabinet, and I really don’t want to be here”
I really hope Owen Patterson jumps (the sinking) ship to UKIP.

The Tories have “previous” as regards putting young poorly briefed women ministers in front of journalists who know their stuff. Look on youtube for Chloe Smith and Paxman. Cringe-making. I don’t know if the Tories think it’s character-building for the victim, or is designed to terminate their careers. Either way, I can hardly bear to watch it. I’d prefer it (from a natural justice point of view) if the minister being skewered was a well known rotter, but anything that deflates the green blob a little will do.
Utterly hopeless. If I was that rubbish at my job I’d be fired

The most damning part of the interview was not the 18 years of non warming but the implications of the 80% decarbonisation targets. It would be quite hard, imo, to defend a policy that requires as yet undiscovered technology to meet it. It makes HS2 look like an exemplar of economic planning.

This interview demonstrates the need for a political strategy in our fight against green propaganda. Owen Patterson, the sacked minster for the Environment used, worked with Dr Richard North of http://www.EUreferendum.com, to create a well documented summary of the British madly expensive commitment to an ineffective green energy policy. Mr Patterson used his political reputation and position to put this well organised information into the media in a form that could be quoted and relied on. This gave Andrew Neil the platform from which to skewer the green minister.
The point is that a good political strategy can create the conditions for a better informed debate. The minister was unable to find wriggle room between denying hard facts and backing policy decisions that are ineffective and madly expensive.
I have said on this blog many times that we should be taking more notice of EUreferendum.com and political blogs because these people are masters at politics. The point is that we have often won scientific arguments only to find our victories obscured by politicians who simply ignore the scientific evidence.

Some confusion here:
“Roy
October 27, 2014 at 3:48 pm
You should read your own links Bloke. That election was in 2010 for a different job. Not the job she is filling now.
In September 2012, she was “appointed” ( not elected ) as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. Since 15 July 2014, she has served as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Vince Causey
October 28, 2014 at 1:38 am
She may well be a good mp, serving her constituents well, for all I know. The issue is her promotion to secretary of state – ie moving from a mere representative to a member of the executive.”
I’ve not much time for Ms Truss or her inteerview performance but, sorry, lads, that is what we do in the UK. We elect representatives to parliament and ministers are, with only odd exceptions, chosen from members of parliament – who remain members of parliament – like Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill. I think you are confusing the British constitution with the US one. And by the way, MPs are not “mere” representatives – ministers and the executive are responsible to parliament.

The Green Blobettes’ energy “plan” appears to be:
1. Get rid of coal.
2. Temporarily increase reliance on NG, with the idea that “it will run out” eventually anyway.
3. Increase wind and solar.
4. Increase nuclear.
5. Increase energy efficiency.
6. Hope for new energy types such as unicorn farts and fairy dust.
7. Hope CCS can become reality and fill the “carbon gap”.
8. Keep fingers crossed and hope for the best.
Total insanity, in other words.

@ mpainter October 28, 2014 at 7:49 am
Of course, I understand that point entirely, having also voted for UKIP in the past. My point is that, ultimately, kicking against the pricks gets us no further than a perhaps a few more compromised political animals in Westminster, albeit political animals with a more principled mandate from the hinterland. And perhaps there is a place for that in the wider war against the Machiavellian forces of the NWO, though I personally no longer want to be a part of that particular theatre.
But without sound long-term strategies for disengagement, all UKIP are doing is feeding on negative sentiment, however understandable such ire may be. That does not represent a plan, but a reaction. And if history teaches us anything, it’s that reactionary forces are really nothing more than an integral part of the negative Hegelian Dialectical model, the spiral of death and rebirth, the Thanatosis Tango. That cycle of revolution and reaction continually orbits around a hard core of death, destruction and waste. Sad, and unnecessary IMHO.
My assertion is that we need to work on the basis of a symbiosis of positive alternatives, which is why I am more drawn to Dr North’s offerings. UKIP in my eyes represents the opposite of that, being essentially a partner in the ‘symthanatosis’ dance of destructive revolution and negative reaction, of divide and conquer. Would it not be far better to engage, outside the puppet theatre of bubble-dwelling zombies, with exiled thinkers like Dr North to think up positive and affirmative alternatives? Surely it’s not beyond the wit of man to imagine creative possibilities outside the current, corrupt paradigm?
And yet I realise that the fierce tribal loyalties of UKIP supporters tend to bypass their critical faculties. Perhaps it’s the sense they have that this is their last-ditch opportunity to save a lost way of life they yearn for – the ‘good old days’, when Richard Briers and Felicity Kendal showed us all what domestic bliss could be. But now I’m just being facetious.

Call this the revenge of Owen Paterson. To use boxing parlance, Paterson has landed a direct counter punch right on the Government’s chin – well Liz Truss’s chin actually. And to borrow another boxing term, she’s got a glass jaw.
This counter punch was perfectly executed. It was not some blind, desperate punch landing in thin air, but with pin point precision and with his full weight behind it. Inevitably, the hapless minister has found herself hauled before the cameras and for the first time that I can recall, a minister has been forced to explain a policy so absurd that if it had been a script for dumb and dumber it would have been rejected as being too dumb.
Finally, I hope that this heralds the beginning of a much need debate on energy policy. If nothing else, kudos to Owen Paterson for putting this into the public arena.

Vince Causey:
“.. the hapless minister has found herself hauled before the cameras…”
<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>
Her promotion to cabinet rank would have been a big, heart-throbbing thrill for her. But I wonder what she thinks now. The truth is that smooth-faced Dave put a newby on the hot seat. The wise ones would have spotted the trap and said “No thanks, Mr. Smooth-face”.
If the glib miss wises up she will come to see that Paterson knew what he was doing when he got himself fired. She will come to see that she is sitting pretty, because smooth-face Dave cannot risk the fallout of firing a second environmental minister over the issue of an increasingly obnoxious political stance.
These are interesting times, Ms. Minster, doo nae you agree?

The truth is that smooth-faced Dave put a newby on the hot seat. …. if you can’t win the argument, you may as well have all the PR for a woman.
Of course, the cynic in me, says they only put a woman there to show how good the men are!
Which is as much a comment about the sexism of the Tories as the way we only seem to get inept politicians in the Tories.

When discussing environmental issues, if I hear somebody say ‘Do you want air to breathe and water to drink’ I’m fairly certain, right then and there, that I’m talking to a fanatic. Because ‘push the PANIC button’ is tactic numbers one through twelve thousand with the fanatics.

That secretary for the environment is a classic example of just how dumb politicians have become in the UK. Remember, all of them, except for three, voted for Ed Miliband’s Climate Change Bill that resulted in the Climate Change Act 2008, which states, ‘It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline.’
That target is an impossible target to achieve. The Act is effectively an economic suicide note for the UK.

my guess is that most western governments now know full well that climate scientists
have very probably overestimated the effect of CO2 on global temperature but have decided to play
along with the green alarmists with the hidden agenda, against the background of the
abject failure of the US & UK’s Middle Eastern policies, of a large reduction in dependence
on Middle East oil. Hence the inconsistencies in that interview and the emphasis on a switch to
gas and development of shale gas resources.
Having this policy as a covert agenda behind the overt support for Climate Change activists
would suit both the domestic & international politics.

To address one of her first points – “more trees” aren’t “green” in the city. They won’t let you put the leaves in with your garbage and they won’t let you burn them. It’s impossible to compost some that don’t don’t deteriorate for years (oak), and even if you are able to compost them, there’s no place to go with it when it’s done. So…one is stuck with putting them in plastic bags or having them hauled out in “city approved” bags made of paper made from….trees – and they are taken someplace where someone else burns them and pollutes the atmosphere – so trees are not “green” in the city.

Well the clear answer is that the scares have been over egged and climate change for the last 18 years flat. Her saying the people want flood protection is all very well, except green headed government have sort to hold back the tide with costly windmills due to the green lobby and EU fines at the cost of ignoring practical flood defences, which for England weren’t put down to global warming.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!OkPrivacy policy